Could ChatGPT have rescued Jaguar from their recent embarrassing catastrophe?

Many recent marketing efforts haven't gone very well. Bud Light comes to mind.

Gerber, Pinto, and other brands have had big fails when they didn't take regional customs or language issues into account.

Can ChatGPT solve this problem?

The temptation to marketing apostasy started when I heard Mark Stiving talk about features vs. benefits.

It’s relatively standard these days to focus on benefits in marketing copy — almost to the exclusion of everything else. What does the product do for the customer? How does it make their life better?

Mark said benefits copy is for people who are new to the product concept while features copy is for people who are familiar with it. For example, when grandpa doesn’t have a smartphone, you focus on the benefits. “You can keep up with the family.” But when he’s used one for a while, you focus on features. “It has a great camera and 256 GB of storage.”

That makes a lot of sense. It’s not one size fits all. Also, it hearkens back to my early days in publishing when people said “features and benefits!”

Then I heard Bob Hoffman talk about the role of fame in selling a product. Bob frequently pokes holes in sacred cows, and he says much of the “received wisdom” in marketing and advertising is nonsense.

I gradually started to question the “marketing wisdom” everyone parrots, and when I saw posts criticizing ads for not emphasizing benefits, not having an offer, or a call to action, I thought, “do we really know that? Are we actually sure that every ad needs those things?”

Sometimes you’ll hear marketers talk about the need for excitement, but I wondered …. If you’re in the library, and somebody comes in and makes a lot of noise, everyone will pay attention. Does that mean that making a lot of noise is a good strategy?

Might audiences be fatigued from hype and attention-seeking antics? Could the diminishing effectiveness of online ads be (at least in part) because we’ve all swallowed the “benefits / call to action / urgency” Kool-Aid?

I’m not a complete heretic. There are some valuable insights in the regular marketing wisdom we hear all the time. But I think we need to keep it in perspective. When you look up the most successful marketing and advertising campaigns, do they follow the oft-parroted guidelines?

Apple’s “Think Different” campaign did have a “call to action,” but the call to action wasn’t to buy their product.

Nike’s “Just Do It” campaign called people to push themselves, but there’s no reason they had to push themselves in Nike apparel.

Coca-Cola’s “Share a Coke” campaign made people look around for cans of coke that had their name, or a friend’s name. What did that have to do with the product?

These ads connected with people on a deep level. They painted an image of something desirable. They associated the brand with an identity. But I don’t think they would pass muster with the marketing orthodoxy I hear all the time.

What if, for example, there are stages to marketing? My brother likes to make an analogy to plowing, sowing, and reaping. Different efforts serve different purposes. Sometimes you’re breaking up the hard ground so the message has a chance. Sometimes you’re planting a seed. Other times you’re getting the sale and collecting the money.

Is the plowman failing if he doesn’t sow? Should we mock the sower because he doesn’t reap? Does every campaign to every market have to do all the work?

Watch out, world! My superpowers are starting to emerge!

Last week I was on a camping trip with some friends, listening to the Ravens game on the radio. I had this premonition that the next play would be an interception. I called it, and I was right.

The same thing happened yesterday with the Redskins game (I won’t call them the Commanders). Also, my wife asked what kind of cake I wanted for my birthday. I said cheesecake, and a couple hours later her boss and his wife showed up at our front door with a cheesecake — as a Thanksgiving gift.

Amazing, right? I’m not only a prophet, but I can manifest cheesecakes at will.

You don’t believe that any more than I do, I hope. The world is full of weird coincidences that have more to do with where we focus our attention than anything magical.

The truth is that we’re plagued with magical, irrational thoughts, which are more politely called “cognitive biases.” Apparently they serve as useful shortcuts that work most of the time, but they can also mislead. It’s important to know them so you can recognize when they creep up — in your own mind, in conversations, in advertising, in sales pitches, etc.

I take my close brush with mastery of the occult over the last week as a sign that I should mention them again. (Kidding, of course.)

I have a deck of cards that explains 24 logical fallacies and 24 cognitive biases. They’re a great way to refresh your recollection of how to think properly, which is an important skill, especially as we seem to have normalized the idea that it’s okay for politicians and advertisers to lie to us.

Some of the biases explained in these cards include …

• Anchoring
• The dunning-Kruger effect
• Optimism and pessimism bias, and
• The availability heuristic

Among the logical fallacies are …

• Begging the question
• The genetic fallacy
• No true Scotsman, and
• The bandwagon effect

It’s important to understand both logical fallacies and cognitive biases, so you don’t get fooled by them, on the one hand, but also so that you don’t mislead people by using them.

The same company also has a deck of 52 brainstorming tools. These can be quite fun. They help you think along different paths and allow creative ideas to bubble up.

After reading plenty of LinkedIn profiles, it seems quite likely that most people are, in fact, not everything they pretend to be. Maybe they could do with a little self doubt. Maybe people should spend some time studying the “disappointing affirmations” thread on Instagram.

Then one of my inner interlocutors kicks in, and he asks if this is a personality thing. Are some people more likely to doubt themselves while others are more likely to have an inflated view of themselves?

To ask the question is to answer it. That’s obviously true.

Three personality traits seem to be implicated here: neuroticism, extraversion, and narcissism.

Neuroticism is associated with emotional sensitivity, moodiness, and a tendency towards anxiety, self-doubt, and negative emotional experiences. That seems to track with imposter syndrome. If you’re high in neuroticism, you probably experience imposter syndrome.

Extraverts tend to be assertive, enthusiastic, and enjoy being the center of attention. Extraversion is negatively correlated with imposter syndrome. So if you’re an extrovert and think you have imposter syndrome … it probably means you’re genuinely terrible at the thing you’re worried about.

The same with narcissists, who have an inflated sense of self-importance, a high opinion of their own abilities, a need for admiration, and a lack of empathy for others. If you’re a narcissist and you think you have imposter syndrome, no. It’s not some syndrome. You’re just awful.

So here’s the rule. If you’re an extrovert or a narcissist, you don’t have imposter syndrome. You are overestimating your ability. The only people who need to be “cured” of imposter syndrome are people who are high in neuroticism.

Here are some practical tests to decide whether your “imposter syndrome” is justified or not.

• Get feedback from people who know your work and your talents, such as managers or colleagues, and not your mother.

• Review your past achievements with a skeptical eye. Have you consistently met or exceeded expectations? Try to use objective metrics to counteract your anxiety.

• You might get an objective read on your abilities if you can take a skill or knowledge test that applies to the area in which you have doubt.

• Try teaching the subject to someone who knows nothing about it. If you can do that, without resorting to jargon and inside baseball nonsense, you genuinely understand the topic.

• Create a real-world test. For example, to test whether you’re actually good at writing email sales copy, your copy should consistently win in A/B split tests.

There are two other things to consider. The first is culture.

I recall listening to a Scottish theologian who said that his celtic soul and his mother would both condemn him for mentioning his new book. Self-promotion is frowned upon in some cultures. You’re supposed to downplay your own accomplishments. It’s unseemly and embarrassing to praise yourself, or even to be praised.

I picked up some of this myself from my mother. I’m uncomfortable with promoting myself.

This is similar to but separate from imposter syndrome. Modesty is a choice or a cultural trait. Imposter syndrome is self-doubt about your abilities.

The second thing to consider is false humility. Humility doesn’t mean saying you’re rotten at something that you’re good at. In a funny way, that’s actually a form of pride.

Here’s a weird example of that. Moses wrote of himself that he was the most humble man on earth, which stretches our conception of what humility means. Humility doesn’t mean beating up on yourself. It means, at least in part, having an accurate view of your own abilities.

That, I think, is the real solution. There’s a proverb that says “let another praise you and not your own mouth.” That’s good manners, of course, but more than that, external validation can act as a check on whether you’re really good at something, or whether you’re an imposter.

It’s time to show a little empathy. But maybe not the way you think.

Years ago, when I was a brash young Evangelical, a Catholic co-worker referred to her priest as “father.” As you probably know, Jesus explicitly said “call no man father,” which I cited along with chapter and verse.

My Catholic friend said, “Wow, I need to show that to my priest.”

That was a pivotal moment for me. Obviously her priest had seen the passage before. It’s not like it was a secret hidden in Martin Luther’s grave. It’s right out there in the open for everybody — including Catholic priests — to read.

Which means that Catholics have some other interpretation of that verse. They read it differently.

Over the years I expanded on that lesson to understand that when you think the other side believes something outrageous, the most likely explanation is that you’re at fault. You don’t understand their actual position, and you need to re-think your conclusion.

That concept was on vivid display over the last few days. I’ve seen influential business leaders complaining that half the country voted for fascism.

Here’s your clue, people. No, they didn’t, and you make yourself sound foolish by claiming it.

I might say that the over the top reactions to the election are insulting and alienating to half your workforce. I might say that you should have a little compassion and empathy.

I’m saying something harder than that. I’m saying that your reactions betray a fundamental flaw in reasoning. If you think that a majority of voters wanted to end democracy and bring in a fascist dictatorship, you’ve left the path of reason.

If I haven’t convinced you yet, let’s put the shoe on the other foot. Let’s say the election went the other way and the CEO of your company said it was a dark day, and he couldn’t believe that half the country wanted to enforce a one-party, communist dictatorship that is intentionally trying to destroy the country.

Would that be an appropriate message from a business leader?

Am I the only one? I need some feedback on this one, folks

I often feel like the odd man out, and I’m not sure if that’s really true, or if lots of other people feel the same way and are just going along to be polite.

Here are a couple examples.

I hate it when I’m at an event and somebody tries to get the crowd excited – based on nothing other than getting excited. I’ll get excited when you’ve given me a reason, but the guy who stands up front and says “are you excited yet” feels like …. How do I explain this? It’s like somebody’s dirty, slimy hands are searching my insides, trying to find my emotions and squeeze them. I resent it, and it’s creepy.

Another example. I love food and drink as much as the next guy. At least I think I do. I’m somewhat of an expert on craft beers, and I’m a pretty good cook. I just can’t get all excited about food. I enjoy good food. I can tell a good brisket from an average one, and I like some wines a lot better than others. But I would never say about food – any food – that “it’s to die for,” or “you simply have to go here.” It’s not that big of a deal.

A common theme is emerging. My excitement meter is on a very different scale than what I see around me.

Here’s why this isn’t about me.

A lot of marketing and sales assumes this whole “get excited” vibe, like getting people to love your brand, and all that other icky stuff. That approach clearly registers with some people. Like people in sales and marketing. But does it register with the public at large? Are they simply going along with it, because that’s what people do, but secretly they’re resenting it?

Here’s some possible evidence that other people dislike this stuff too.

1. There’s something called “Social Desirability Bias.” It’s a tendency to answer a question or to behave in a way that is more likely to make you fit in. In other words, you’re being sociable and trying to act in a culturally appropriate way, which is a good thing, as a general rule, but it also means that just because a lot of people go along with something doesn’t mean they like it.

2. There are introverts and extroverts out there – apparently in about equal numbers – and it’s the extroverts who are pushing this “get excited” stuff, making fully half of your audience get the heebie jeebies.

3. Studies show a growing preference for authenticity and consumer skepticism toward brands that seem overly promotional or emotionally manipulative.

There are points against what I’m saying. Some people like that high-energy stuff. There are self-selected groups – I guess they’re all extroverts – who relish it.

In some cases, high energy is part of the culture. It’s an expected part of the experience – like being at a Pentecostal church service, or a political rally.

Finally, excitement and urgency can drive sales, … or so I’m told … it doesn’t work with me … so if you’re willing to seem a little creepy and inauthentic to get the sale, there you go.

What’s the bottom line here?

First, just because something works at the Amway sales event doesn’t mean it’s appropriate for your conference on electric utility regulations. Maybe something to consider is whether your audience has been selected because of their personality or because they share a common interest?

Second, did you get permission to yell at people? Did you warn them that you were going to put your slimy hands inside and try to find the “get excited” button? It seems appropriate. You don’t invite your quiet aunt to the tent revival meeting without warning her what she’s facing.

Third, is extroversion a necessary part of your sales process? Adam Grant at the University of Pennsylvania has found that “ambiverts” – people with both extroverted and introverted traits – outperform both extroverts and introverts. To everything there is a season. Maybe there are times to dial it up and times not to.

Here are the five headlines.

* It's time to re-think our rejection of 3p cookies

* 12 ways to use a Customer Data Platform

* Preparing for AI agents: What's your strategy?

* Plan now for the turbulence ahead

* How to make people love your content

Today's podcast is a quick summary. If you'd like a copy of the letter, you can get the PDF here.

https://krehbielgroup.com/letter-archives/Krehbiel-Letter-2024-11.pdf

Some publishers see generative AI as a fundamental challenge to their business. Some would say it’s an “existential threat” but that phrase is overused and annoying.

Generative AI is certainly disruptive, but it also presents a lot of new opportunities.

As I say in my most recent letter, I believe the larger threat is from AI-curated content.

No matter where you stand on this, you should have a written policy for the use of AI in your organization.

That policy should cover general principles like …

Transparency – when and to what extent do you have to disclose that you’ve used AI?

Accountability – to what extent is a human responsible for the final product.

Data privacy and compliance – make sure you’re not feeding AI with information it shouldn’t oughta have.

Your policy should also cover how AI can be used. For example …

• As an assistant in research and analysis.

• To check grammar and spelling.

• To create or edit first drafts.

• To create or enhance images (with some limitations below).

• To create a transcript of audio or video content.

In all these cases you should give some guidelines on where AI work ends and a human’s review begins.

You should list prohibited activities, like …

• Fully automated content generation. Personally I think fully automated content is fine in certain cases – such as creating summaries of an article – so long as that’s clearly explained.

• Using AI images to depict real people or events.

• Using AI to make value judgments on sensitive issues.

The policy should say whether all content must be reviewed by a human author. That’s particularly important with fact-checking.

You might also require a certain level of training before employees are allowed to use AI.

I’ve drafted an AI policy for The Krehbiel Group which you can use as a starting point. You can find it here.

https://krehbielgroup.com/the-krehbielgroup-ai-policy/